April, 07 2011, 11:34am EDT
Stop the Corporate Takeover of Organics
Send Your Comments to the National Organic Standards Board
CORNUCOPIA, Wis.
The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which advises the Secretary of Agriculture on organic policy and rulemaking, is considering several changes to the USDA's organic standards that would water down organics, catering to corporate interests.
We cannot allow corporate-backed members of the NOSB to chip away at the integrity of the label. The following proposals are highly objectionable. Please comment on them through www.regulations.gov (complete instructions below).
Synthetic Additives
The proposal would allow any synthetic additive that qualifies as a "nutrient" to be added freely to organics, even those that have never been tested for safety by the FDA. Currently, organic law requires all synthetic additives, including nutrients, to be individually petitioned, carefully reviewed and approved by the USDA before they can be added to organics.
Message to the NOSB: Reject the Handling Committee's proposal regarding nutrient additives. Nutrient additives must be individually petitioned, reviewed and approved as safe and appropriate for organics before they can be used, as the law currently requires.
Already, some companies are illegally adding a synthetic form of DHA omega-3 (from algae) and ARA omega-6 (from soil fungus) oils to organic food, including organic infant formula. These additives have been linked to serious gastrointestinal reactions in some babies and toddlers.
More information: An action alerton this topic was sent out in late March. If you already sent in your comments--Thank You! If you haven't already commented, please do so today.
Space for Chickens
Factory farms, with as many as 100,000 birds in a building, that do not have legally mandated access to the outdoors, would be shut down if new strict rules are put into place.
The good news is that the NOSB Livestock Committee proposal would outlaw the tiny enclosed porches that industrial-scale producers had been illegally calling "the outdoors."
But our struggle for meaningful animal welfare standards is not over! The committee caved once again to industry pressure--proposing outdoor space requiring just 2 ft.2 per layer and 1 ft.2 per broiler! In the European Union, organic standards require at least 43 ft.2 per bird outdoors and the US leading organic brand, Organic Valley, affords their birds 5 ft.2 outdoors.
2ft.2 and 1 ft.2 is simply not enough for birds to have meaningful outdoor space where they can exhibit their natural behaviors (like running around and "foraging").
Furthermore, the proposal would grant 1.2 ft.2 indoors for laying hens and 1.0 ft.2 for meat birds, which is no better than the current industry standard for factory farms, and certainly inadequate for organics. Many legitimate organic farmers currently provide 1.5 ft.2 of indoor space for their laying hens.
Message to the NOSB: Please resist pressure by the industrial-scale producers to reduce the outdoor space requirements for chickens any further. When I buy organic eggs and chicken, I expect that the birds were raised with ample access to real outdoor runs--5 ft.2 should be the bare minimum!
More information: Watch the video and read Cornucopia's report, Scrambled Eggs. A complete action alert on the NOSB's proposal for organic poultry is also available.
Indoor and Outdoor Space for Growing Pigs
The Livestock Committee's proposed space requirements for growing pigs are so small, even standards set by the National Pork Board--which is controlled by industrial hog producers--are more generous! The proposed space requirements would make it impossible for growing pigs to turn around in their bedded indoor space, with even less space outdoors.
Message to NOSB: The proposed space requirements for growing pigs are woefully inadequate. If organic standards are going to be the gold standard in terms of animal welfare, growing pigs should be granted more space than what is currently proposed.
More information: A complete action alert for organic hogs is available.
Indoor Space for Dairy Cows
The opposite is true for dairy cows. The latest proposal for indoor space requirements is so overly generous that it could essentially put thousands of family-scale dairy producers out of the organic business.
Many small-scale organic dairy farmers use stalls in their barns to position the cows and direct their manure away from their bedding. The proposed space requirements would have cows lying in their own excrement. Most family farm producers would have to build new barns to meet these space requirements--a capital investment that many could not afford, forcing them out of the organic business.
Message to NOSB: A previous recommendation, which had been accepted by the full NOSB, already requires stall barns to provide one full, traditional stall per animal. Therefore, indoor space requirements for dairy producers with stall barns are unnecessary.
More information: A complete action alert for organic dairy cows is available.
Take Action
Please submit your commentelectronically before the April 10 deadline.
We strongly recommend submitting two separate comments--one for nutrient additives and one for animal welfare. Also remember that a message in your own words carries more weight than cutting and pasting the sample letter, so please personalize your message, at least at the beginning and end if possible!
And your message doesn't need to be long to be effective.
Tell your family and friends to submit their comments as well!
To speak in person at the NOSB meeting (important if you can make it):
In addition to sending their written comments, organic farmers and consumers living in the Seattle area, or willing to travel, are encouraged to also sign up for a five-minute speaking slot at the meeting at the end of April. Individuals can find more information about the meeting, and can pre-register for a slot by April 10, 2011, by visiting https://www.ams.usda.gov/nosbseattleslots or by calling (202) 720-3252.
Please email cultivate@cornucopia.orgor call 715-514-2627 if you are planning on attending the Seattle meeting.
Sample Letter for Consumers
Unregulated Synthetics/Animal Welfare
Dear Members of the National Organic Standards Board,
Thank you for your efforts in setting animal welfare standards for organically raised farm animals. I appreciate the clarification that organic laying hens and meat birds be required to have outdoor access beyond a tiny, lifeless enclosed porch.
However, I have some concerns about the proposed stocking rate chart.
For chickens, the current proposal does not grant enough space. Please require more outdoor space for chickens, since birds cannot run around freely in outdoor runs if they only have 1 ft.2 or 2 ft.2 Many producers already grant much more outdoor space, and 5 ft.2 should be the bare minimum in the organic standards.
Please resist pressure by the industrial-scale producers to reduce the outdoor space requirements for chickens any further. When I buy organic eggs and chicken, I expect that the birds were raised with ample access to real outdoor runs. And indoors, birds should have at least 1.5 ft.2 of space (1.2 ft.2, the agribusiness standard for uncaged birds, is inadequate).
For growing pigs, the proposed stocking rate would not allow pigs to even turn around inside, and they would not all fit in their outdoor space. The space requirements for growing pigs must be increased.
For dairy cows, the proposed indoor space requirements would make it impossible for thousands of family-scale organic dairy producers to comply. Since a previous recommendation already requires one traditional stall per animal, indoor space requirements for dairy producers with stall barns are unnecessary.
Furthermore, I strongly object to the inclusion of any synthetic nutrient ingredient in organic food without the careful review by the NOSB, which is legally mandated.
Please do not water down the working definition of organic agriculture and food production!
The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit farm policy research group, is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Their Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate and governmental watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit.
LATEST NEWS
'Insane This Is Legal': Bettors Make Huge Profits From Suspiciously Timed Wagers on Iran War
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year."
Mar 01, 2026
Bettors on the prediction platform Polymarket made a killing with suspiciously timed wagers that the United States would attack Iran by February 28, the day President Donald Trump announced a bombing campaign against the Middle East nation.
Bloomberg reported that six accounts on Polymarket, all newly created this month, "made around $1 million in profit" by betting on the timing of the US attack on Iran. The accounts, according to Bloomberg, "had only ever placed bets on when US strikes might occur," and "some of their shares were purchased, in some cases at roughly a dime apiece, hours before the first explosions were reported in Tehran."
One account with the name Magamyman raked in over $515,000 by betting roughly $87,000 that the "US strikes Iran by February 28, 2026."
The lucrative bets quickly drew scrutiny from lawmakers. US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that "it’s insane this is legal."
"People around Trump are profiting off war and death," Murphy alleged. "I’m introducing legislation ASAP to ban this."
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote that "prediction markets cannot be a vehicle for profiting off advance knowledge of military action" and demanded "answers, transparency, and oversight."
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year," Levin wrote, referring to the president's eldest son. "The [Justice Department] and [Commodity Futures Trading Commission] both had active investigations into Polymarket that were dropped after Trump took office."
There's no concrete evidence that Trump administration officials or staffers were behind the hugely profitable bets, but the wagers heightened concerns about the possibility of insider trading using increasingly popular prediction market platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi. Last month, bettors used Polymarket to make big profits on suspiciously timed wagers on when the US would oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Polymarket currently allows users to bet on when Iran will have a new supreme leader, when the US and Iran will reach a ceasefire agreement, and when the US will invade Iran.
The celebrity news tabloid TMZ reported Saturday that "a group at a Washington, DC restaurant was talking openly in the bar area Friday afternoon about a national secret that was about to literally explode hours later—the bombing of Iran."
As journalist David Bernstein noted, that—if true—leaves open the possibility that "these 'insider' bets have been placed by any rich person with good ears in DC."
"Not to mention that for all we know these administration clowns were probably gossiping about it on a text chain with half a dozen people they accidentally invited," Bernstein added. "This is hardly the locked lips brigade we’re dealing with."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Pillory Trump Case for War on Iran: 'Flimsiest Excuse for Initiating a Major Attack' in Decades
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said one analyst.
Mar 01, 2026
Senior Trump administration officials attempted during a briefing with reporters on Saturday to make their case for the joint US-Israeli military assault on Iran that has so far killed hundreds and plunged the Middle East into chaos.
According to experts who listened to the briefing, which was conducted on background, the justification for war was incredibly weak. Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, told Laura Rozen of the Diplomatic newsletter that the administration's argument was "the flimsiest excuse for initiating a major attack on another country without congressional authorization, in violation of the UN Charter, in many decades."
During his early Saturday remarks announcing the attacks, President Donald Trump claimed that "imminent threats from the Iranian regime" against "the American people" drove him to act. But Kimball said that administration officials "provided absolutely no evidence" to back that assertion during the briefing.
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said Kimball.
Following the start of Saturday's assault, which Trump explicitly characterized as a war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, unnamed administration officials began leaking the claim that Trump feared an Iranian attack on the massive US military buildup in the Middle East, prompting him to greenlight the bombing campaign in coordination with Israel and with a nudge from Saudi Arabia.
Kimball, in a social media post, took members of the US media to task for echoing the administration's narrative. "Reporters need to do more than stenography," he wrote in response to Punchbowl's Jake Sherman.
"The American people were lied to about Iraq. The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Trump and top administration officials also repeated the longstanding claim from US warhawks that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon, something Iranian leaders have publicly denied—including during recent diplomatic talks. Neither US intelligence assessments nor international nuclear watchdogs have produced evidence indicating that Iran is moving rapidly in the direction of nukes, as claimed by the administration.
Rozen noted that some remarks from administration officials during Saturday's briefing "suggested Trump’s negotiators"—a team that included Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—"may not have had the expertise or experience to understand the Iranian proposal to curb its nuclear program." Rozen reported that one administration official kept misstating the acronym for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog.
Trump administration officials, according to Rozen, seemed astonished that Iranian negotiators would not accept the US offer to provide free nuclear fuel "forever" for Iran's peaceful energy development, viewing the rejection as a suspicious indication that Iran was opposed to a diplomatic resolution—even though, according to Oman's foreign minister, Iran had already made concessions that went well beyond the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abandoned during his first stint in the White House.
Experts said it should be obvious—particularly given Trump's decision to ditch the previous nuclear accord—why Iran would not trust the US to stick by such a commitment.
The administration's inability to provide a coherent justification for war tracks with the rapidly shifting narrative preceding Saturday's strikes—an indication, according to some observers, that Trump had made the decision to attack Iran even in the face of diplomatic progress and left officials to try to cobble together a rationale after the fact.
In a lengthy social media post, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted war was necessary because Iran "refused to make a deal" and because the Iranian government "has targeted and killed Americans," hardly the claim of an imminent threat push by the president and other administration officials.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, noted in response that the Trump administration has "sidelined anyone who could articulate... a coherent argument, partly because expertise is deep state and woke and partly because they just don't care."
The result is another potentially catastrophic war that runs roughshod over US and international law, puts countless civilians at risk, and threatens to spark a region-wide conflict.
"President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Tragically, Trump is gambling with American lives and treasure to fulfill Netanyahu's decades-long ambition of dragging the United States into armed conflict with Iran."
"The American people were lied to about Vietnam. The American people were lied to about Iraq," Sanders added. "The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Leaders Face Backlash Over 'Cowardly' Responses to Trump War on Iran
"As we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
Mar 01, 2026
The top Democrats in the US Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, faced backlash on Saturday over what critics described as tepid, equivocal responses to President Donald Trump's illegal assault on Iran—and for slowwalking efforts to prevent the war before the bombing began.
While both Democratic leaders chided Trump for failing to seek congressional authorization and not adequately briefing lawmakers on the details of Saturday's attacks, neither offered a full-throated condemnation of a military assault that has killed hundreds so far, including dozens of children, and hurled the Middle East into chaos.
Schumer (D-NY)—who infamously worked to defeat the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump later abandoned during his first White House term, setting the stage for the current crisis—said he "implored" US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to "be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next."
"Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon," he added, "but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home."
Jeffries (D-NY), a beneficiary of AIPAC campaign cash, said in his response to the massive US-Israeli assault that "Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism, and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region."
"The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East," said Jeffries.
The Democratic leaders' responses bolstered the view that their objections to Trump's attack on Iran are based on procedure, not opposition to war.
This is a disgusting and cowardly statement handwringing about process and the need for a briefing.
No you idiot. This war is a horror and a disaster and must be directly opposed. Any Democrat who can’t say that needs to resign and ESPECIALLY the ones in leadership. https://t.co/CdZoEyNkOy
— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) February 28, 2026
Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember who is running for Congress, said that "as we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
"Democrats should speak clearly and with one voice: no war," Valdez added.
Schumer and Jeffries both committed to swiftly forcing votes on War Powers resolutions in their respective chambers. But reporting last week by Aída Chávez of Capital & Empire indicated that top Democrats worked behind the scenes to slow momentum behind the resolutions, helping ensure they did not come to a vote before Trump launched the war.
"The preferred outcome of many AIPAC-aligned Senate Democrats, according to a senior foreign policy aide to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, is that Trump acts unilaterally, weakening Iran while absorbing the domestic backlash ahead of the midterms," Chávez wrote.
Neither Schumer nor Jeffries backed legislation last year aimed at forestalling US military intervention in Iran.
The top Democrats' responses to Saturday's US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which Trump said would continue "uninterrupted" even after the killing of the nation's supreme leader, contrasted sharply with statements of rank-and-file congressional Democrats—and even some members of leadership—who condemned the president for shredding the Constitution and driving the US into another deadly war that the American public opposes.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible 2028 challenger to Schumer, said Saturday that "the American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions."
"This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic," said Ocasio-Cortez. "This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region, and this will be no different."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was more blunt.
"Congress must stop the bloodshed by immediately reconvening to exert its war powers and stop this deranged president," she said. "But let’s be clear: Warmongering politicians from both parties support this illegal war, and it will take a mass anti-war movement to stop it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


